3 ms·

I'm not sure how old you are, but it's been a very long time since that was true. You're right that the Clean Water Act was as a big success, but those success

I'm not sure how old you are, but it's been a very long time since that was true. You're right that the Clean Water Act was as a big success, but those successes were mostly realized decades ago. At some point, the cost of ever-more stringent environmental regulation outweighs the benefit. In many contexts (e.g., air regulation), there are strong arguments that we are at that point. That is, the cost of incrementally more regulation is very, very high, and the benefit to anyone is very difficult to discern. Whether or not you believe that's true in the context of GHGs largely depends on your overall view of the benefit of mitigating climate change, but your comments seemed directed toward environmental regulation as a whole, and whether any regulation has gone too far.

amluto 6y ago
I would believe that the costs of further clean air improvement are high as measured by annoyance to established people, but not necessarily cost. Where I live, the following would help particulate pollution: - Eliminating existing grandfathered-in wood burning fireplaces. Costs almost nothing as measured by dollars. - Emission controls on restaurant exhaust. This is currently required only for restaurants that chat-grill more than a certain amount of beef. Restaurants that smoke up whole blocks grilling pork, lamb, veggies, etc are exempt. These emission controls are not that expensive. - Outdated fuel-burning devices such as 2-stroke leaf blowers and old cars. Electric leaf blowers are cheap now. Old cars are fun, and banning or taxing them would be unpopular but would cost almost zero dollars.
- asdff 6y ago
  Where I live, the vast majority of pollution comes from shipping, not residential or light commercial uses. We have arguably the worst traffic in the U.S. in LA, but driving or other individual consumer activities is a drop in the bucket compared the the ecological scarring diesel trucks, LAX and especially the port of LA have done and will continue to do to the region for the foreseeable future, until we change how we fuel transocean shipping and air travel. https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/6c4535d/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1280x810+0+0/resize/840x532!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fa7%2F31%2F9c6902ec4238a6302ce680b0c501%2Fla-g-projected-top-10-smog-sources-in-southern-california-2019-12-27-chartbuilder.png https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/6c4535d/214...
  - amluto 6y ago
    That’s a nitrogen oxide plot. NOx isn’t that dependent on how you fuel anything — it’s mostly a function of how you burn it. I don’t know how practical it would be for ships to use a less efficient low-NOx combustion mode when they’re near land. I would imagine that the average restaurant grill emits very little NOx and a whole lot of PM2.5.
specialist 6y ago
What do you think of PFAS and other "forever chemicals" contaminating many watersheds?
mywittyname 6y ago
It's not that long ago. I live near by what used to be one of the dirtiest waterways in the the US. Even as recently as the mid-90s, sewage was dumped directly into the waterway and numerous landfills seeped toxic chemicals such as lead and various hydro-carbons into it. The river used to be so toxic that no life beyond worms could inhabit it. The cleanup for it started in 2006 and is ongoing today. It's only within the past decade that fish finally started swimming in the river. And now the neighborhoods that it runs through are seeing huge increases in property values and new development as this former toxic waste dump is now converted into water-front bike trails and parks. We absolutely still see the benefits of the Clean Water Act today.
- ryathal 6y ago
  It sounds like the benefit was in complying with the decades old regulations, not anything that had been added in 2006.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
I am in my 50s, so not that crazy old. I also remember industry fighting very improvement, be it safety or environment, tooth and nail and warning of massive job losses. These losses never materialized but instead profits kept flowing and life improved massively for all citizens. To me it's total nonsense and FUD that the cost of tightening up standards is too high. It gets prized into the product and smart companies will find ways to adapt. Companies that refuse to adapt deserve to go under.

amluto 6y ago

I would believe that the costs of further clean air improvement are high as measured by annoyance to established people, but not necessarily cost. Where I live, the following would help particulate pollution: - Eliminating existing grandfathered-in wood burning fireplaces. Costs almost nothing as measured by dollars. - Emission controls on restaurant exhaust. This is currently required only for restaurants that chat-grill more than a certain amount of beef. Restaurants that smoke up whole blocks grilling pork, lamb, veggies, etc are exempt. These emission controls are not that expensive. - Outdated fuel-burning devices such as 2-stroke leaf blowers and old cars. Electric leaf blowers are cheap now. Old cars are fun, and banning or taxing them would be unpopular but would cost almost zero dollars.

asdff 6y ago
Where I live, the vast majority of pollution comes from shipping, not residential or light commercial uses. We have arguably the worst traffic in the U.S. in LA, but driving or other individual consumer activities is a drop in the bucket compared the the ecological scarring diesel trucks, LAX and especially the port of LA have done and will continue to do to the region for the foreseeable future, until we change how we fuel transocean shipping and air travel. https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/6c4535d/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1280x810+0+0/resize/840x532!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fa7%2F31%2F9c6902ec4238a6302ce680b0c501%2Fla-g-projected-top-10-smog-sources-in-southern-california-2019-12-27-chartbuilder.png https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/6c4535d/214...
- amluto 6y ago
  That’s a nitrogen oxide plot. NOx isn’t that dependent on how you fuel anything — it’s mostly a function of how you burn it. I don’t know how practical it would be for ships to use a less efficient low-NOx combustion mode when they’re near land. I would imagine that the average restaurant grill emits very little NOx and a whole lot of PM2.5.

specialist 6y ago

What do you think of PFAS and other "forever chemicals" contaminating many watersheds?

mywittyname 6y ago

It's not that long ago. I live near by what used to be one of the dirtiest waterways in the the US. Even as recently as the mid-90s, sewage was dumped directly into the waterway and numerous landfills seeped toxic chemicals such as lead and various hydro-carbons into it. The river used to be so toxic that no life beyond worms could inhabit it. The cleanup for it started in 2006 and is ongoing today. It's only within the past decade that fish finally started swimming in the river. And now the neighborhoods that it runs through are seeing huge increases in property values and new development as this former toxic waste dump is now converted into water-front bike trails and parks. We absolutely still see the benefits of the Clean Water Act today.

ryathal 6y ago
It sounds like the benefit was in complying with the decades old regulations, not anything that had been added in 2006.

spaetzleesser 6y ago

I am in my 50s, so not that crazy old. I also remember industry fighting very improvement, be it safety or environment, tooth and nail and warning of massive job losses. These losses never materialized but instead profits kept flowing and life improved massively for all citizens. To me it's total nonsense and FUD that the cost of tightening up standards is too high. It gets prized into the product and smart companies will find ways to adapt. Companies that refuse to adapt deserve to go under.